Being a proud Atheist, and a freedom loving INFIDEL AKA "KUFFAR", WE are threatened by the primitive pidgeon chested jihad boys in the medieval east.
FRACK YOU!! SAY US ALL!! Don't annoy the Pagans and Bikers,, it's a islam FREE ZONE!!! LAN ASTASLEM!!!!

Monday, December 17, 2012

Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your
area.

"Whoever
Fights Us, Fights Islam"

In the ongoing conflict between those Egyptians who strongly oppose a
Sharia-based constitution—moderates, secularists, non-Muslim minorities—and
those who are strongly pushing for it, Islamists are currently evoking the
one argument that has always, from the very beginnings of Islam, empowered
Islamists over moderates in the Muslim world.
Examples are many. According to a December 1 report from El
Fagr, Gamal Sabr, former campaign coordinator for the anti-freedom
Salafi presidential candidate Abu Ismail, made the division clear during
an Al Jazeera interview, where he said that "whoever disagrees with him,
disagrees with Islam itself," and that many Egyptians "are fighting
Islam in the picture of President Muhammad Morsi and in the picture of the
Islamists," clearly implying that the latter are one with Islam, and to
fight them is to fight Islam.
The logic is simple: Sabr, as well as those millions of Egyptians who want
Sharia, only want what Allah wants—that Egypt be governed according to Sharia
law. According to this position, any and all Muslims who disagree, who do not
want to be governed by Sharia, whatever their arguments and rationale, are
ultimately showing that they are at odds with Islam itself.
Sabr is hardly the only Egyptian Muslim making use of this age-old
argument. A Dostor
report, also appearing on December 1, quotes Tarek Zomar making the same
point. A leader of the infamous Gam'a Islamiyya (Islamic Group), who was
formerly imprisoned for his role
in the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, released with the ouster
of President Hosni Mubarak, and is now a member of the Shura Council of
Egypt's Parliament, Zomor asserts that whoever votes against the Sharia-based
constitution that Morsi is trying to enforce "is an infidel"—an
apostate enemy to be slain in the cause of Allah.
Others like Sheikh Abdullah Badr—who earlier said that anyone who opposes
or rejects the Sharia will have their tongues cut out—after describing protesters as
"mischief makers" said they would be "hung on trees,"
a distinct allusion to Islamic crucifixion, as proclaimed in Quran 5:33:
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger
and strive to make mischief in the land is only this: that they should be
murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off…"
Even Ahmed Morsi, President Muhammad Morsi's son, accused
the many demonstrators in Tahrir Square who object to his father's attempts
to impose Sharia on them of belonging to the "former regime"—code
for secularist-minded people, who are opposed to the totality of Sharia law.
Writing on his Facebook account, he asserted that "all the people in
Tahrir Square are remnants of the old regime," adding that "my
father will eliminate them soon."
Such is the difficulty encountered by moderate Muslims, past and present:
how can they justify their rejection of Islamic teachings, as captured in the
Quran, hadith—teachings and doings of Muslim prophet Muhammad—and the words
of the Islamic scholars throughout the ages, all of which constitute the
"Sharia" of Islam, a word that simply means the "way" of Islam?
History offers insightful parallels and patterns. A few decades after
Islamic prophet Muhammad died, during the First Fitna—whence the Sunni-Shia
split emerged—a group of extremely fanatical Muslims, known as the
Kharajites, based on a word that literally means "those who go out"
(of the Islamic fold), rejected both Sunni and Shia leadership claims and
deemed themselves the "truest" Muslims. Accordingly, they engaged
in takfir, that is, randomly accusing any Muslim not upholding the
totality of Islam's teachings of being infidels, often killing them.
Today's radicals and Islamists are similar; in fact, that is the primary
way more moderate Muslims portray them, as "Takfiris" who
themselves sin by judging fellow Muslims, when that is Allah's prerogative
alone.
Due to the impossibly high standards the Kharajites set—to sin even once
was to be deemed an apostate and executed—mainstream Islam eventually
rejected their approach, to the point that merely saying the Islamic
profession, or shehada—"there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is
the prophet of Allah"—is usually enough to safeguard someone as a
Muslim.
Yet it is not that simple today. The Kharajites of the 7th
century were truly extreme—ritually slaying even Muslim women and children
for not being Islamic enough—whereas the Islamists of today are merely
insisting that Sharia law be enshrined in the constitution and enforced in
Egypt. From a historical point of view, this is not an "extreme"
position and only seems so to those "globalized" Muslims who espouse
enlightened and rationalistic principles.
Hence why these secular, moderate, or liberal Muslims—so long as they
define themselves as Muslims—are destined to lose the debate with
their more radical brethren, who will always say, "True Muslims support
Sharia: if you reject this, then you are no Muslim, you are an apostate, an
infidel, and thus an enemy."Raymond Ibrahim is
a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate
Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Related
Topics:Egypt, Radical Islam | Raymond IbrahimThis
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral
whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of
publication, and original URL.

Post a Comment

http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/the-course/

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law

We need to get off Saudi Barbarian OIL!!!!!Support the Canadian OIL Sands,,, and visit,, Ethicaloil.org

The gravity of the existential threat we face from Islamic Jihad is truly of epic proportions. It is essentially a battle pitting free-civilized man against a totalitarian barbarian. What is at stake is the struggle for our very soul - namely who we are and what we represent. The lives that were sacrificed for individual rights and freedoms that we've come to cherish are being chiseled away from right under our noses by the stealth jihadists. And many of us are in denial and totally clueless.

The left's appeasement and pandering to evil is nothing new. What makes their utopian delusions so infuriating and unpardonable is that it is not only they who will have to pay the consequences, and deservedly, so, they are thwarting and undermining our best efforts at resistance and are thus dragging us down in the process as well.